Rowan Atkinson-Amazing Jesus
Probably more accurate than it seems
To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation—is that good for the world?
“
| — | Christopher Hitchens |
Theological Liars: I ‘Kalam’ Out When I See Em’
The Kalam Cosmological Argument(lie)
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4.This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.
Two false premises, a false conclusion and then a leap of faith. Pitiful really.
The first premise should read “all that has been observed to have a cause, has a cause” since making claims like everything that begins to exist must have a cause is arrogant, but oh well.
The first premise leads invariably to infinite regression. If the first premise is true and god exists as the “first cause” of this universe, then either he needs a cause and that cause needs a cause and so on and so forth or he did not begin to exist and is either non existant or eternal. Eternal existance would lead to eternal action and consequence (cause and effect) because consciousness is thought and thought is chronological/linear. Premise two will expand on this.
The second premise has no basis. Name one scientist who says the universe had a beginning. The big bang? NO! the big bang is a period of expansion from a singularity. The singularity is the original state of the universe and nothing is known about the singularity regarding age or origin. It could be eternal.
And if it was eternal, then we would have infinite cause and effect, and since the only god which can be argued for is an eternal one with consciousness (with infinite cause and effect) then this poses nore more illogicality than the god.
The conclusion that the universe has a cause is false since the first premises is an arrogant claim and the second is based on no evidence.
“This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.”
This is pathetic, even if the premises where true the leap from a cause to a god is laughable. couldnt the first cause have been an eternal force, particle or even a non-personal deity without free will or concious thought?
I mean seriously, what kind of retarded conclusion is this? Its like saying “all creatures are born, therefore all mothers are intelligent by nessesity and choose via free will to get pregnant”.
*depressingfacts pointed out that nothing “begins to exist anyway” down in the crotch so I thought I would make a quick adjustment as he has excellently pointed out a fallacy of equivocation. When the first premise says “whatever begins to exist” it means whatever we know that has been created. The only things that have “begun to exist” in this way have been created ex materia (from existing materials) but the conclusion claims creation ex nihilo (from no existing materials). The two are in no way the same. Creation ex nihilo has no evidence whatsoever in favour of it and, ironically, is the claim that god caused nothing to become everything. And creationists with their misunderstanding of the big bang theory, think that the idea we came from nothing is absurd right?
Thank you depressingfacts
So yeah. Problem theists? (:))
